Is This Moral Relativism?

By Steve Gillman

This is a continuation from the page, Moral Reasoning

Is the following concept of beliefs as tool moral relativism? No, but we'll get back to that in a moment.

If the various views of morality tend to converge at the level of "right action," does it matter which moral system we adopt? Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean we should all have the same moral beliefs. There are better moral systems in a general sense, but we can't say which one is better for all people at all times.

There is a time and a place for various beliefs in a person's life. A Christian morality may be just what a person needs at a given time. We have all heard the stories of a person turning her downward-spiraling life around because of this or that religious faith. Apparently, even if we just see those beliefs as tools (which is how we can choose to see all beliefs), those tools were just what she needed right then. Why would we want to take that away from her?

Now, these cases usually are more about beliefs and feelings of redemption and love and a higher purpose, than about the specifics of the moral code chosen. But the principle is the same. Why wouldn't a person use whichever tool work best at the moment? It can be dropped later in any case. This is not moral relativism, but moral progress.

A great example of this is in a true story I read about a young man. Since I don't recall his name, I'll call him Eddie. He had been involved in robbery, rapes, and more, and he was eventually sent to prison. His choices had been horrible, and his life was miserable, but something happened to change that in prison. He met a man who became his spiritual counselor, a preacher for the group the "Nation Of Islam." The experience was an awakening.

Eddie came out of prison a different man. He had self respect and respect for others. He never returned to a life of crime, and in fact became a well-paid journalist. However, even though the Nation Of Islam had as he put it "saved his life," he did not stay with this religious organization. He saw that their beliefs were racist, among other things (they tended to denigrate white people). He outgrew these beliefs and so could not be a part of this group or their philosophy.

This is a perfect example of how a religion or set of beliefs can be tools that truly save lives even though they are not the ultimate truth. Eddie could have felt that he "owed" it to the group to continue espousing their beliefs, but he felt a greater obligation to discover the truth and a commitment to his own self development. Nonetheless, that morality did save him at the time.

To return to the question then: Does it matter which moral system we adopt? Yes, it does matter greatly to the individual, and ultimately to societies (more on that momentarily), but no we cannot say that there is one system which is right for everyone at every moment in their lives. As outside viewers of a story like that above, though, we can see moral beliefs that will be better if the person continues to evolve. More specifically, we can say that however useful the racist religious and moral beliefs were to Eddie, it is good that he grew beyond them.

This Is Not Moral Relativism

We can see that as tools, various moral beliefs can be useful to different people, depending on their unique situations and level of self development. But we can also see that if each person is to continue his or her moral development, the movement should be towards better beliefs. What are those better beliefs? What is that better morality?

To be blunt, we have to all say, "It is mine." If you can't say that, why would you hang onto your beliefs for one second more? If you are honestly seeking to better yourself or to understand reality, wouldn't you adopt any beliefs that you thought were closer to the truth?

That points out what is perhaps the real path of any honest seeker of moral truth. The true seeker must be always following the moral code that he thinks is best, but must also be continually modifying that code as he learns more. Consider what the world would be like if we had maintained any common moral code from ancient times without changing it. We might still have slaves. We might still torture animals to death to make the meat taste better (a real practice in the past). Beliefs have to change with changing facts and knowledge, and this is as true with moral beliefs as with any others.

This isn't relativistic. Moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions don't reflect objective or universal moral truths. The view here is that there IS objective truth and morality, but that our beliefs are only approximations that need to be continually updated. To put it into a language that might be better understood by god-believers, "How presumptuous of man to think he can capture God's truth perfectly (and on the first try) in our imperfect languages?"

Moral relativism sees moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). This view presented here sees moral values as universal - all individuals seek their own self interest as the highest value. And unlike extreme relativist positions that hesitate to judge the moral acts of another person or group, this view allows for moral judgment at least of actions. We can clearly see that some actions are self-destructive, and therefore immoral.

Other actions are not so clear, like when a man hurts another for what seems to be self-interest. But the fact that there are difficult issues doesn't invalidate the view. It does suggests that we take a closer look at what "self interest" really is, and change how we think about moral issues in general.

Obviously, the direction of the change I'm proposing here is towards a morality defined by self interest. Though it arrives at many of the same conclusions as the more altruistic moral philosophies, it is closer to the truth in my mind. It is not moral relativism, because it accepts that there is objective truth and universal morality. However, it also isn't absolutist, like many "moralities," because it doesn't assume moral truth can be absolutely and permanently captured in a set of words. With that in mind, lets look again at some of the problems of the more common moralities...

Continued here: Moral Corruption

Other Pages

Contact Us
Site Map

Note:

Much of this is speculative, a way to look at things from new perspectives. I do believe in a "natural morality" which is experienced as "conscience," and which is universal in "normal" humans. However, the particular ways we describe these things may evolve. In other words, don't be surprised if I change my mind on some points here.